Paramilitaries carry out drone attack on Red Sea port city, Sudan's army says

This is a locator map for Sudan with its capital, Khartoum. (AP Photo)
By SAMY MAGDY
Sudan's paramilitary Rapid Support Forces launched a drone attack Sunday targeting a military airbase and civilian facilities in the coastal city of Port Sudan, the military said.
No casualties were reported in what is the first known attack by the Rapid Support Forces on the Red Sea city. Port Sudan has served as an interim seat for the government since the war between the military and the RSF paramilitary group started more than two years ago.
Brig. Gen. Nabil Abdullah, a spokesman for the Sudanese military, said RSF drones hit an ammunition warehouse in the Osman Digna airbase, causing explosions. The attack also hit a cargo warehouse and civilian installations, he said in a statement.
Video footage posted on social media appeared to show plumes of thick smoke rising above the airbase.
The attack briefly halted air traffic at Port Sudan's airport, according to the Sudanese civil aviation authority.
The city's airport has been the country's entry point since the RSF occupied the Khartoum international airport at the start of the war. The miliary retook the capital's airport earlier this year but the facility has yet to be functional.
There was no immediate comment from the RSF.
The rebel group has stepped up its drone attacks on civilian facilities in military held areas in Sudan. Last month, the paramilitaries hit a major power plant in Atbara, a railway city, north of Khartoum.
The drone attacks came after the military re-took Khartoum earlier this year, pushing the RSF to their stronghold in the western region of Darfur.
As the military consolidated its positions in the capital, the RSF advanced in other areas in the county's peripheries, capturing Sudan's largest camp for displaced people in North Darfur and a key town in West Kordofan province.
Activists accused the RSF of committing atrocities, including street killing and rape, in the two areas where hundreds of people were reported killed.
Sudan's ongoing war broke out on April 15, 2023 after simmering tensions between the military and the RSF exploded into open warfare across the country.
Since then, at least 24,000 people have been killed, though the number is likely far higher. The war has driven about 13 million people from their homes, including 4 million who crossed into neighboring countries. It also pushed parts of the country into famine.
The fighting has been marked by atrocities including mass rape and ethnically motivated killings that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, especially in Darfur, according to the U.N. and international rights groups.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Japan Today

5 hours ago

• Japan Today

Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating Posse Comitatus Act

California National Guard stand guard along a street near protesters and Trump supporters in Santa Ana, Calif. on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo Jae C. Hong) By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer also asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction returning control to Newsom of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans, had gathered at a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. 'All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

The Mainichi

17 hours ago

• The Mainichi

Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. "The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant." It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a "BIG WIN." He wrote that "all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. "The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," Newsom said. "The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens." The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.

Yomiuri Shimbun

a day ago

• Yomiuri Shimbun

Congo and Rwanda Will Sign a Peace Deal on June 27, a Major Step in Ending Fighting in Eastern Congo

AP file photo FILE – Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosts a signing ceremony in which Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, left, and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, right, pledge to work toward a peace deal at the State Department in Washington, April 25, 2025. DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — Congo and Rwanda will sign a peace agreement in Washington on June 27 that aims to ending fighting in eastern Congo, the two countries and the U.S. State Department said. Congo has accused Rwanda of backing M23 rebels in its mineral-rich eastern region across the border with Rwanda. U.N. experts say the rebels are supported by about 4,000 troops from Rwanda, which has denied backing M23. The decades-long conflict escalated in January, when the M23 rebels advanced and seized the strategic Congolese city of Goma, followed by the town of Bukavu in February. The draft agreement includes 'provisions on respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities; disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of non-state armed groups,' the joint statement said Wednesday. The agreement also includes a commitment to respecting territorial integrity and the conditional integration of non-state armed groups. Congo and Rwanda are not formally at war and in the past had held peace talks that have largely stalled, including those hosted by Qatar. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance, a coalition of rebel groups, told The Associated Press in April that international sanctions and Congo's proposed minerals deal with the United States in search of peace would not stop the fighting. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, told The Associated Press that he believes that the duration of the agreement will depend on 'Kinshasa's willingness to undertake structural reforms of the security apparatus, and the commitment of the international community to accompany the reforms to the end.' He added that the proposed agreement did not significantly differ from previous attempts at peace. M23 is one of about 100 armed factions vying for control in eastern Congo. But unlike the others, they are mainly made up of ethnic Tutsis who failed to integrate into the Congolese army. The group says it is defending ethnic Tutsis and Congolese of Rwandan origin from discrimination, although critics say their Rwanda-backed campaign is a pretext for economic and political influence over eastern Congo. Rwanda's longtime President Paul Kagame accuses Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi of overlooking the concerns of the ethnic Tutsis and ignoring previous peace agreements.